Which international arbitration rulings have been issued against Venezuela by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, and what is their payment status?

1. ConocoPhillips: the $8.7 billion ICSID award and the $2 billion ICC settlement — what was decided and what remains unpaid

An ICSID tribunal in 2019 unanimously found Venezuela had unlawfully expropriated ConocoPhillips’ stakes in the Hamaca, Petrozuata and Corocoro projects and ordered the state to pay about US$8.7 billion plus roughly US$20.4 million in arbitration costs, while an independent ICC tribunal separately awarded approximately US$2 billion against PDVSA for contract breaches that was later resolved by a PDVSA settlement (the ICC component was settled for about $2 billion in 2018/19) ^{[5] [1] [2] [6]}. Venezuela sought annulment of the ICSID award; annulment efforts were ultimately dismissed, clearing the award for enforcement (reports state the annulment committee refused to annul the award in a decision reported in January 2025), but reporting also indicates that Venezuela had not paid the large ICSID sum as of the latest coverage and Conoco has pursued seizures of Venezuelan assets abroad to collect ^{[6] [7] [4]}.

2. ExxonMobil: the ~$1.6 billion ICSID award, later reviews and enforcement steps

An ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of ExxonMobil in a 2014 award principally concerning the Cerro Negro and La Ceiba projects, ordering roughly US$1.6 billion plus interest for the 2007 expropriations; subsequent procedural challenges produced complex outcomes including jurisdictional and annulment litigation and later rulings altering the scope and quantification of compensation, and at least one later tribunal decision has been reported as ordering Venezuela to pay a more modest US$77 million in a related proceeding (the core 2014 ICSID award and later developments have been confirmed in legal reporting and in filings summarized by multiple sources) ^{[8] [3] [9]}. Press and fact‑checking accounts note that although Venezuela has in some filings acknowledged owing compensation, actual payment has been delayed and ExxonMobil has pursued enforcement in U.S. courts and through attachment of assets in multiple jurisdictions ^{[10] [11] [4]}.

3. Enforcement, settlements and the practical reality: awards versus collection

Winning an arbitration does not guarantee cash in the vault: ConocoPhillips recovered the ~US$2 billion ICC award from PDVSA via settlement, but the much larger ICSID award against the Venezuelan state has been upheld and remains the subject of enforcement efforts because Venezuela has balked at prompt payment in several high‑profile cases, and experts warn that collection typically requires multi‑jurisdictional asset seizures or negotiated settlements ^{[2] [6] [4]}. Venezuela has repeatedly challenged panels, sought disqualification of arbitrators and attempted annulments — tactics that delayed finality and complicated enforcement even after tribunals ruled, and some sources also report the state has at times conceded an obligation to compensate while disputing amounts and jurisdiction ^{[1] [10] [6]}.

4. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

The record shows clear tribunal victories for both ConocoPhillips (ICSID ~US$8.7 billion; ICC ~US$2 billion, the latter settled) and ExxonMobil (ICSID ~US$1.6 billion award with later related rulings), but collection remains partial and contested: PDVSA paid/settled the ICC award to ConocoPhillips, the ICSID Conoco award has been upheld and opened to enforcement but not reported as fully satisfied, and ExxonMobil’s awards have spawned further procedural rulings and enforcement actions rather than simple payment ^{[5] [2] [6] [8] [4]}. Reporting reviewed here does not provide a definitive, up‑to‑the‑minute ledger of every dollar recovered across all jurisdictions, and readers should consult the original ICSID, ICC and court enforcement records for the latest collection outcomes.